Memory Beta:Pages for deletion/Peter Durst
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *To vote simply add "Delete", "Keep", "Neutral". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an admin will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale No cited mention in literature. -- DS9 Forever 13:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Votes *''Delete'' DS9 Forever 13:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) *'Delete' --8of5 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) *'Currently Neutral' -- Captain MKB 17:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC) **'keep' -- Captain MKB 02:19, February 4, 2010 (UTC) Discussion Did Durst have a CCG card? Just want to check that avenue before we give up on rehabilitating this article. -- Captain MKB 17:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC) : I can't find a mention of Durst on any CCG card. Shouldn't we keep him purely to maintain a complete list of Voyager crewmates? Technically, he's mentioned in the Star Trek Encyclopedia... so, couldn't we just cite that?--Tim Thomason 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC) ::I agree that the encyclopedia is a valid source. -- Captain MKB 02:19, February 4, 2010 (UTC) :::If the Star Trek Encyclopedia can be used as a literary source for articles with no other references in Star Trek literature, articles on everything in TOS, TNG, six and a half seasons of DS9 and four and half seasons of Voyager plus nine movies can be created on Memory Beta. Seems to open a huge can of worms to me. -- Tough Little Ship 00:02, March 1, 2010 (UTC) ::I forgot the last place this was discussed, but looking at the number of in universe articles on Memory Alpha, the number has been proven to be at least manageable... especially considering the large number of canon topics that are completely covered by fully detailed licensed works here -- the number of canon, non-licensed use, in-universe Star Trek topics is a minority compared to those used in the expanded scope of the novelverse. Many articles are extensively linked to here as people tend to start with canon as they populate lists and such. ::We can renominate this for the deletion if you like, but no one else has contested my addition of the 'keep' discussion in quite some time, i assumed that meant there would be tolerance of some of these articles being cited as such on a trial basis -- we can always purge extraneous data if that is the community consent, i just am of the opinion it would be possible to keep this. -- Captain MKB 00:24, March 1, 2010 (UTC) Hmm, this is a major grey area. As TLS points out Star Trek Encyclopedia, and other sources such as the CCG, Star Trek Fact Files, Star Trek Chronology, etc, are primarily guides to canon information. But, they also give us some non-canon information. So while they are suitable sources for non-canon information, I don’t think we should be aiming to incorporate everything they cover because that would mean a huge amount of information with no non-canon connection what so ever. But then as Mike says we often use canon information as the basis for lists which we expand upon with non-canon topics. And it might sometimes necessary to have canon only articles on topics which are highly relevant to our non-canon articles. Now I would not have created this article, it has no non-canon info, the Star Trek Encyclopedia citation is nonsense, it adds nothing to the article (and according to the recently updated citation policy shouldn’t even be on the page technically). But is it relevant enough to the crew listings of Voyager to keep? I don’t know! --8of5 15:05, March 1, 2010 (UTC) :Since this is a 'nonsense' citation, but a 'gray area' that is a major 'can of worms', maybe we should just tag these articles as they are created to better understand what place they will play in the future of this database. One of my favorite things about this article is that it features our sidebar with an illustrated rank insignia, something that I doubt Memory Alpha would be willing to do (i'm not going to ask them!), but the graphic is something i'd like to be able to look up about canon characters while browsing articles. So our canon character article is superior to Memory Alpha's, in my opinion. -- Captain MKB 15:16, March 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Hmmkay, well if we are going to keep it it should be better formatted; stick a personnel connections template at the bottom, an appearances and references list where the Encyclopedia reference would be more appropriate – thereby making it at least a little more relevant for our database. However I have just noticed another problem: The article (sidebar aside) is a word for word cope of MA's... --8of5 15:22, March 1, 2010 (UTC) Admin resolution